Baylor University did a study showing that irreligious people and theologically liberal people were significantly more superstitious than evangelical Christians. Another study also confirmed this matter. You can read about this matter in the Wall Street Journal article: Look Who's irrational now

In addition, atheists, agnostics and theologically liberal individuals are significantly more likely to believe in evolution.

Since I am a Bible believing young earth creationists, it should came as no surprise to people that I personally don't have a superstitious bone in my body. I could break mirrors and walk under ladders all day long and not break a sweat.

Yet, no matter how hard I try to convince atheists, agnostics and Darwinists not to be superstitious, I know it is going to happen many times anyways.

With the superstitiousness of Darwinists in mind, below are 13+ very "unlucky omens" that Darwinism is doomed and all the rabbit's foots, four-leaf clovers and horseshoes in the world are not going to change this fact.

13+ recent grim events relevant to Darwinism

1. The best evidence points to global atheism and agnosticism shrinking in the world while global Christianity and creationism is seeing significant growth. Theologically liberal churches are shrinking while many theologically conservative churches are growing

2. Creationism has recently grown in the United States according to a Gallup Inc. survey. Recently, evolution unfriendly laws have been passed in the United States. Theologically conservative Bible clubs are proliferating across the United States at a rapid rate and creationists will certainly make alliances with them. This could spread around the world.

3. Theologically conservative Christianity and creationism is growing quickly in various Western nations, in Latin America, in Asia and in Africa.

4, The shrinking of global atheism/agnosticism will affect Western agnosticism/atheism in an age of globalization (immigration, global communication and travel, etc.)

5. The decline of global atheism/agnosticism is expected to accelerate.

6. Evangelical Christians are making rapid advances in internet evangelism (Global Media Outreach in 2011 did 149 million gospel presentation via the internet). Prominent atheist websites have seen big drops in traffic in the last 5 years.

7. Christian creation evangelists are communicating with their internet evangelism brethren with a goal of dramatically increasing creation evangelism on the internet and through offline methods. In addition, a plan has been developed to help accelerate the global decline of atheism/agnosticism and the continued rapid growth of global Christianity and creationism. Atheists and agnostics have no plan to reverse their global decline in adherents.

9. In the general population, a recent study suggests that most people believe in evolution based on a "gut feeling". On the other hand, Christianity has an abundant amount of excellent evidence supporting it. See: Evidence for Christianity

10. After experiencing Darwinist harassment in the recent past, creationists who are growing in power (due to higher fertility rates, immigration and evangelism) will pull the plug on evolutionism being promoted in public schools. In addition, in an era of many governments being strapped for cash, more and more primary, secondary and higher education schools will be privatized and many of these schools will be run by religious organizations. In addition, given that private schools are on average less costly to run, there will be more vouchers and charter schools which will increase religious schooling hostile to Darwinism. Also, many schools will have less funds to launch frivolous lawsuits against creationist students.

11. China which has the largest population of atheists is seeing an explosive growth of Christianity in the both the countryside and in urban centers

12. European creationism is growing and secular Europe is having significant economic problems and could turn to God for answers

I clearly said that the points were supported via these articles: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html In fact, I referred readers to these articles twice so you have no excuse. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of the fallacy of exclusion. Please try to be more logical in subsequent comments or they will not be approved.

Next, claiming evolution is science and demonstrating it are entirely two different things. I am not impressed with your unsupported assertion.

If you were confident it was science, you would certainly want to debate the 15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people. Are you confident or are you going to slink away or make excuses?

1. Keeping in mind historian David Hackett Fischer's rules of thumb for historians (see: http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html), please make your best case for the most probable alternative option outside of creation or evolution.

2. Using evidence from this blog post, could you please specifically point out where I committed the logical fallacy that you claimed I committed.

For example, please keep in mind that I cited this resource twice in this blog post and specifically told people to read this resource for details:

The answer to all 15 questions is, we don't know, YET. Epilepsy was thought to be Devine, as well as mental illness and disease, but we understand it now, so how are your 15 questions any different? And on another note, how does proving creationism going to diminish the amount of agnostics, what Christians fail to see is that, you are not helping anything, people dislike organised religion, and most think that the christian god is a terrible one, and I agree as even if he did exist I would rather hell, why do you think lucifer left in the first place. On a completely unrelated note, this comment section isn't very iOS friendly.

If you are going to dodge my response to your illogical comment and refuse to answer reasonable questions. I don't see how we are going to have a productive dialogue. The same can be said of your unsupported assertions.

You need to show good faith for me to want to have a discussion with you.

I find very funny that the writer of this article is accusing someone of being guilty of a logical fallacy (fallacy of exclusion), when he's argument revolves around another logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).

The writer was told that disproving evolution would not prove creationism, and the writers response was "please make your best case for the most probable alternative option outside of creation or evolution." In other words, since the writer can't think of anything more probable than creationism (if evolution is false), then he will accept creationism. If the writer of this article can't recognize the logical fallacy in that argument, then he has no right in pointing out when others make logical fallacies.

In 1970, the historian David Hackett Fischer wrote a noteworthy book entitled Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought.

Fischer wrote:

1. The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

2. An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

3. All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic.

Unlike evolutionists and third option people, Christians have strong evidence to support our worldview. And unlike evolutionists and we don't claim the evidence came from millions/billions of years ago but merely 6,000 years ago. In the case of Jesus Christ and his claims, it is merely 2,000 years ago. Evolutionists and third option people have no evidence. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html

Evolutionists and Pascal's "third option" Wager people have the odds stacked against them because do not have an evidence in their favor - Christianity has the evidence. They can't point to anything they will gain and Christians can point to what they will lose. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html

So, what's the "evidence" you have from 6,000 years ago? Something written in the Bible? The Bible was written by men who wanted to control the masses and has no historical or scientific background.If you want to disprove something, the best way to do it is going on a scientific adventure to prove it with facts and evidence. That way people are able to check your discoveries and write articles based on trusted resources.

Trusted resources are not written by the Church, but by that large community of people that check your results.

this is how the theory of Evolution was created, as well as how the Law of Universal Gravitation started. (I'm pretty sure when Universal Gravitation was just a theory, you wouldn't jump off buildings trying to disprove it.)

1. Gave plenty of information supporting the Bible and its historical claims. You didn't address the information. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html

2. Throwing out unsupported claims is not acceptable. For example, you claimed without supporting it: "The Bible was written by men who wanted to control the masses". You also claimed without supporting it the Bible has no historical evidence supporting it.

3. You said that facts are established by people checking on the work of others.

Accordingly, we want to check on your claims.

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

No one is sure were life came from. We have about as much proof that that a sparkling unicorn named Billy Joel the 2nd created people, as we do through Christianity. I am not against the idea of a higher/different energy/dimension. However the truth definitely does not lie with Christianity, perhaps there are forces we don't understand. But to think they/it has a conscious, or look like us is simply unfounded. Really it's just man projecting himself into the void of existence. The fact you think the earth is only 6,000 years old is the real rejection of logic. Why do you believe in god? Why do you believe in the bible? Why do you think Jesus Christ is your lord and savior? Are you a born again christian, or have you just believed everything your family ever told you without questioning it. If you were born in the middle east you probably would be Islamic, and you would naively believe everything about Islam, just as you do with christianity.

One of the reasons why global atheism/agnosticism is shrinking and public interest in evolutionism declining is that atheists/agnostics often used the same ineffective and tiresome arguments and tactics. Keep sending your abundance of unicorns and leprechaun taunts, but realize it is not working - especially when you do it unreasonably like Richard Dawkins does with his fairies analogy. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-does-richard-dawkins-have-such-high.html and ineffectiveness of New Atheism at http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html

One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expect different results.

Next, why are you asking me for proof and evidence of Christianity, Bible and biblical creationism considering these two things:

2. You did not give me proof and evidence for the validity of atheism, agnosticism and evolutionary belief? For example, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism/agnosticism are valid worldviews?

Questions:

Are you willing to debate the issue of the 15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

Are you confident in the validity of your worldview and of the alleged falsity of Christianity and biblical creationism or are you going to slink away or make excuses?

If you are confident, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 and ask to speak to the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaRamones

First looking behind the facts. Many people who may indeed be technically atheists usually will identify as non-religious. There is still a large social stigma atheists face. Even so, many more christians are what we call chr-easters (only go to church on Easter and Christmas).

Or perhaps this poll from Gallup in which 34% of americans say religion is not an important part of their daily life.

Very clever attempt at skewing the statistics however, quite commendable.....but actually that claim you are making is an outright lie. It's not true at all, atheism has been and continues to be on the rise around the globe.

"Globally, those claiming to be religious, drops by 9%, while atheism rises by 3%"

An interesting read by WIN-Gallup International http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf

So you are telling me your proof and evidence of Christianity, the bible and creationism rests on the fact that Atheism is in decline and Christianity is on the rise EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT EVEN TRUE?

Take a real hard look at the bible my friend, and understand most of what you are reading is hearsay. Then consider many of these hearsay stories were passed many generations through oral translation (perhaps even longer for sections of the old testament). Jesus Christ died around 35 AD, and as it says in the bible Jesus had amassed quite a reputation. So why is not one first hand account exists of any part of his life, even his death? In fact the first mentioning of Jesus is not written until over 15 years later. A majority of the details present in the Gospels are lacking in Corinthians.

This article deals with the interesting contradictions within the bible that surround Jesus's death.

http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php

The men who knew Jesus probably talked him up after his death. His disciples wanted him to be remembered for something great, not just another butchered prophet. Peter Simon was probably the most torn up, after denying his friend, he watches him die. So either by the hand the hand of the apostles or the work of someone later down the line....legend formed. Who knows how much in the bible was actually done by Jesus, or if most of it even happened.

Now before you tell me there is no way that a lie like that could continue for so long, consider this. In 1st century Jerusalem most people could not read or write. There was no efficient form of direct or mass communication. News traveled painfully slow, and would do so orally. Oral communication is never as reliable as written communication. Details and information gets lost or construed, almost always, even if it's unintentional. Soon enough, enough people hear the same thing, and that is how legends emerge. If you tell a junior high school girl to have her friends to spread some simple piece of information around in one day, what do you think happens? By the end of the day your hearing something very different from what you told that girl at the beginning of the day.

Now take away cell phones, any ability to write, change it so there many different languages, no internet, no facebook. Increase the land area to thousands of miles and add 15-30 years till anything being said is written down.

This is why I find Christianity to be false. I would be glad to have an oral debate with you, however I will need to further look at the 15 questions. The only reason being the blatant lies you have put on this page, I'm sure you are probably twisting facts or distorting information on those 15 questions as well.

1. You first post to me reflected a lack of due diligence and frankly intellectual laziness.

You asked me for evidence supporting my worldview which I gave and told people to read twice in the post. You obviously did not click the resource I told people to read twice in the post. Namely, this resource: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html

2. Your second post also reveals a lack of due diligence.

For example, please tell me why are citing a poll about atheism which has obvious methodological flaws in it and not using a much more rich data set instead. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/another-major-flaw-found-in-survey.html

3. Your lack of due diligence also shows up in your examination of the Bible.

Please show me that you used rigorous Bible exegesis and historical analysis using these methodologies/principles when forming your complaints about the Bible:

4. You are not showing good faith in terms of wanting a dialogue. I asked you what proof and evidence you have showing the worldviews of atheism and agnosticism are valid worldviews and received no response from you about this matter. This is totally unacceptable on your part and shows a lack of good faith on your part.

5. Your last comment was off topic and not germaine to this post. This post is not about the subject of Bible inerrancy. I am not going to be your errand boy when you should be doing your own due diligence about your alleged Bible contradiction complaints. I suggest using these resources if you want to resolve your Bible complaints in the future: Tektonics - Apologetics Encyclopedia (http://www.tektonics.org), A Christian Think Tank, Apologetics Press - Alleged Discrepancies, Inerrancy.org.

5. I do want to stress the fact that I have no desire to go off on a thousand errands for someone who is obviously intellectually lazy and showing a lack of good faith.

6. As far as your "what is your answer to this" request, we can certainly handle this during the debate. If you are sincere and confident, you will accept our debate offer.

Wow they can't even follow through with their arguments, if they aren't responding then I think you have pretty much won, got em fair and square. I find it funny when atheists make themselves look stupid, they keep saying stuff but they don't even back their arguments up and when they do they provide a link to a site with an overwhelming amount of links that they probably haven't even read or they link a site that has errors, they just can't handle the undeniable truth of an intelligent designer, they continuously deny that their experts are wrong

You are engaging in long distance armchair psychology over the internet. Not exactly compelling stuff since I am assuming you are not a mind reader.

Second, are you willing to debate the issue of the15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

Are you confident in the validity of your worldview and of the alleged falsity of Christianity and biblical creationism or are you going to slink away or make excuses?

If you are confident, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua?

Why is it so important for atheist and religious alike to be right? I´m a man of science, and I don´t have an opinion about God. I live my life as if I was a good Christian (or any other good moral compass). I don´t need church or a priest to tell me what to do nor do I tell others what to do. So again, why is it so important for you lot to be right? Religious as atheist...(That being said, I am convinced that Darwin, basically, was right).

Are you convinced that Darwin was basically right? Are you willing to have a debate centered around the15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your alleged evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua.

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

This is bad. God doesn't like this. He wants you to know that He built us a universe where the main principle is Reason, not blind faith. You are practicing and preaching speculation (a type of dishonesty) and hate. Hatred of anything or anyone is a type of fear, and a damnable one at that. Your Christian duty is to spread love and light, as Christ would. Change your ways or you will Damn yourself with this facade.

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shcokofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

Evolution has rules, so there are thing it couldnt produce, such as say, a lion with a snake for a tail, and bird's wings. But God could produce such a creature.

YET, for some reason, He saw fit to create many animals with a range of overlapping physical features, Dinosaurs with feathers, etc, that all fit into consistent categories, and even different layers of the Earth.

You could be right, and God created life. But even if he did, the evidence he left behind points to evolution for some mysterious reason.

But then, God is pretty mysterious, right?

We've observed ALL the necessary mechanisms for evolution. We have NEVER observed creation. This is why evolution is science, and creation, even if true, is not.

Homologous structures, far from pointing away from a designer of infinite wisdom, would have indicated to readers of the Bible in their time a designer who did indeed possess infinite wisdom and mastery over His creation. It is only because modern persons have arbitrarily decided that a certain degree of what they see as ‘originality’ is a proper means value that the evolutionists’ argument carries any apparent force.

To frame our argument against the evolutionists’ misuse of homologous structures requires us to have an understanding of certain values critical to ancient persons. Roman literature of the New Testament period tells us that ‘(t)he primary test of truth in religious matters was custom and tradition, the practices of the ancients.’ In other words, old was good, and innovation was bad. Change or novelty was ‘a means value which serves to innovate or subvert core and secondary values.’

By itself, this demolishes one part of the evolutionists’ argument and makes it, clearly, a case of arbitrary imposition of modern values. In a context such as the above, ‘radically different design’ would have indicated to an ancient reader either no deity, or else a deity whose means was chaos and instability, or a deity who did not have mastery over creation." taken from: http://creation.com/not-to-be-used-again-homologous-structures-and-the-presumption-of-originality-as-a-critical-value

3. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

Ok, but ancient people wouldnt have known enough about biology to come up with evolution anyway, it's not like it would have been hard to convince them, since Creationism could easily be thought up in absence of biological knowledge.

We're talking about what we know right now. If you agree with 'microevolution,' then that implies you agree that the mechanism for evolution is observable. We evolutionists simply take that as nature showing you how it actually does things.

But we can't and don't observe life popping into existence fully formed, so more proof that that happened is needed.

So I ask you, I challenge you to answer my questions:

1. Does God want as many people as possible given free will, to know evolution isn't true?

2. Has God done everything he could to make it apparent that evolution didn't happen?

It is our experience that evolutionist are often filled with bluster and unconfident in their evolutionary beliefs.

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the15 questions for evolutionistsvia a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

"Since I am a Bible believing young earth creationists, it should came as no surprise to people that I personally don't have a superstitious bone in my body. I could break mirrors and walk under ladders all day long and not break a sweat."

Yet, you think you can talk to some invisible being, possibly up in the sky, who, ...if you ask in the right way and are a "good" boy, will help you out personally, or perhaps will help your country win a war against the "evil" worshipers of the "wrong god" of another country, if you ask the right way. Maybe try sacrificing a goat or two like the old testament days...that might convince god to help... or drink some of Jesus' blood and eat unspecified body parts... which may or may not actually turn into real Jesus blood and body parts once inside.

Not superstitious??? What a laugh! Of course, you wont post this now will you?

1. Why didn't you address the two studies showing that the non-religious and people who subscribe to liberal theology are more superstitious?

Also, aren't those two categories of people more likely to subscribe to evolutionary belief?

2. Atheists often have faulty assumptions and assume too much. In addition, they often do poor due diligence.

The majority of Bible believing creationists are Protestants and not Catholics. Protestants generally don't believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation (wine/bread issue). It is Roman Catholics who are the biggest promoters of the transubstantiation doctrine. And most Roman Catholics are evolutionists. So to make your wine/bread charge at a Question Evolution! blog was showing poor judgement and a lack of due diligence.

Please show me proof and evidence that I believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or admit your error and apologize.

3. Why is something not visible wrong to believe? Do you believe in logic which is not visible? Do you believe in carbon monoxide?

4. If people grant other people's wishes, then why is it wrong to believe God grants wishes?

5. Are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true?

6. Are you saying that one nation cannot be evil? Were the evolutionary racist the Nazis evil? Please demonstrate to me that prayers to defeat the Nazis were morally wrong.

7, Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

The thing is...I don't need to answer the question of "is there a god"? Why do you need to?

I can look at the beauty of the world and just "experience" it, perhaps in the way a Zen Buddhist would, though I'm no Buddhist ... but I don't need to ask where it came from... I see incredible things, living and not but I do not believe the question can be answered, the moment you stop experiencing and start thinking, asking, you start making things up... think how many thousands of religions and gods have been made up in mans history... including "primitive" peoples... what ridiculous ideas they they've had.

It's a waste of time what your doing... I'm heading outside here in Oregon to enjoy the sun, the colors of the trees and the women in skimpy clothes these last beautiful fall days... thats how I "worship"

Besides, why can't your god work through evolution... you can still have your essential spark of life that no science can explain... because it's impossible... and that's right where I leave it... enjoy it while your here...

Perhaps against my better judgment I decided to be a little more flexible.

A few more points:

1. You seem to be advocating agnosticism.

Norman Geisler wrote:

"Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to falsify itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality" (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20).

What proof and evidence do you have that agnosticism is a valid worldview?

2. If you truly don't believe the question of origins can be sufficiently answered, then why aren't you willing to take me up on our debate offer and demonstrate to tens of thousands of people that the question cannot be answered?

If you want to show us you are sincere, then take us up on our debate offer. There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate. We don't want to waste our time with insincere or intellectually lazy people.

Dude, do you know how many people are laughing at you and your childish website. How old are you? Your insistence on debating your 15 points instead of actually debating some of the intelligent people who have posted on here is infantile in the extreme. you can use certain language and dress your web page up as an intelligent well thought out comment on a very interesting subject. However you are never going to get any proper answers to any of your points because, apart from the fact that every point you have made has peer reviewed and published science to demolish it, no one can be bothered to debate your infantile rubbish.

yet again, and quite ironically, you fail to answer my point about you failing to answer other posters points. You have descended into pointless namecalling (poser evolutionists are a dime a dozen).As for your point that evolutionists will debate on your terms, this is wrong. This debate should not be on evoultionists or creationists terms, but on the terms set out by scientific discovery throughout history. ie: peer reviewed scientific ideas that evolve into theories and eventually facts.

I concede that as I am not a biologist, I am unable to argue your 15 points, but as a layman, I have seen all of these points argued and defeated. I even understood some of the science behind it.

to answer your question of why peole won't debate with you, what I can say is that your infantile website and style of argument offer nothing to these intellectuals in the way of reasoned argument. why would they stoop to even read your tripe, let alone answer your badly made points, or suffer your childish argumentative answers.

Please answer my questions:

Does god exist, how do you know, where is the proof.if god does exist, is he/she yahweh, allah, odin, thor or aphrodite.Is the theory of evolution an idea or the accepted reality following years of peer reviewed experimentation, research and observation.these are simple questions which I feel you should try and master before you move onto your list of 15.Thank you for taking the time to engage.

The tactic of trying to swamp this blog with pointless comments by insincere people is not going to work. They are easy to delete.

We are not going to be errand boys for insincere evolutionists/atheists/agnostics who give us time wasting assignments.

It wasn't exactly surprising that they were reluctant to debate when the debate would be recorded in distributed to tens of thousands of people. Insincere people spouting easily refuted nonsense are invariably afraid to debate.Poser evolutionists are a dime a dozen and we are not impressed with them.

We both know that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists and are afraid to debate them when the debate will be widely distributed to tens of thousands of people.

See also: 15 questions that evolutionists STILL cannot answer to see YouTube's best and brightest evolutionists stumped by these very relevant 15 questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg

I notice you didn't bother to answer my few simple questions. what then gives you the right to demand that your questions are answered. Again you have resorted to childish name calling. I haven't swamped this blog with any pointless comments, indeed I have engsged with you and posed some interesting questions. These questions are far simpler than your 15, and would seem to be a better starting point.I am concerned that though you say quite a lot, and say it quite eloquently, there is no substance to anything you have written.If you reply to me, please do not go off on a tangent about your 15 points, and how insincere anybody with a different viewpoint from your own is. Please just answer my couple of questions that I asked in my last post.Again, thank you for taking the time to engage.

What has Simon44 proved? It certainly wasn't evolution. And it certainly wasn't atheism. I certainly didn't see him offer any proof and evidence that atheism is true. He offered no credible alternative to the abundant evidence for biblical Christianity. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html

In addition, we address the peer review issue in this article http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html

Luke Manning, are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

Of course you may (unfortunately) win the ideological war, but the percentage of believers/unbelievers in evolution is beside the point. Scientists will continue to use and develop evolutionary theory for the same reason they use algebra: it works. Creationism does not.

1. Your claims are not going to be taken at face value. You need to demonstrate your claims and cite your sources.

2. When push comes to shove, evolutionists have repeatedly shown they are unwilling to defend evolutionism publicly and they lost hundreds of debates at universities etc before crawling into their intellectual bunnyholes: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evc-forum-and-fairness-of-evolutionists.html

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

I have a purely hypothetical question. I'm not taking any side yet, I'm just really interested. Since science is all about finding The Truth, it also means you should have the courage to admit that you've been possibly wrong for your whole life, because the way things are is not dependent on how you want them to be or how much you believe in it.

Litany of Tarski:If the sky is blue I desire to believe that the sky is blue. If the sky is not blue I desire to believe that the sky is not blue.

If the creationism theory is rightI desire to believe that the creationism theory is right.If the creationism theory is not rightI desire to believe the creationism theory is not right.

So here is the question:Suppose you received evidence against creationism. Some wondrous, absolute and undeniable evidence. Something that answers all your questions and doubts. Something that would definitely convince you. I don't know what it would take to convince you, maybe a time machine to go and check everything that happened according to Bible since creation of the earth, so just assume that you are totally convinced with what you see.What would you do with your life then? Would you drown you bitterness in previously forbidden pleasures because sins don't matter anymore? Would you hide in self-deception by saying "Hey, the world was not created in six days and humans was not shaped from mud, so what does it change? God must have created universe and all it's physical laws anyway. Even though Bible itself is a big fat lie." Or would you continue to live as you did after reasoning that religion made you a better person and it doesn't matter that there is no God?What would you do?By the way, I would've asked an atheist just the opposite.

Vadim, when I saw there was a long winded hypothetical, I knew it must be an evolutionist.

Creation testifies to the Creator and you have no excuse. See: http://www.icr.org/bible/Romans/1/20/

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

Aren't you an afraid little thing? You don't want even hypothetically accept opponents point of view. Ignoring my actual question says as much. It's all right, all people are afraid to be in wrong."One of the definitions of insanity is to keep doing the same things and expect different results.""atheists/agnostics often used the same ineffective and tiresome arguments and tactics"Those were your words and still that's exactly what you do - copypasting the same reply and referring to the same links that was used in your article like you are assuming that nobody even tried to read it (about "shrinking" for example).Nobody accepted your invitation to the debate and you still repeat it over and over again. Nobody will and you know _exactly_ why judging by your insistence. Oral debate would require good speaker skills, close to perfect memory so as not to forget previously avoided arguments since it's only possible to discuss one at a time, extensive knowledge since it would be impolite to go visit library during debate and scientists know that they still know very little about universe no matter how smart they are. While those skills will make a good show they have nothing to do with truth. An oral debate is a place for sophistics, for ignoring questions like you did many times in this comment section alone, for leading discussion away from what you cannot answer, for gaining influence over opponent. And in the end one who shouts louder and more humorous will win. Not the right one. Every intelligent man participated in debates and knows it all too well. And written discussion solves all those problems. That's why no one will accept your offer. But seeing as it brushes everybody off, believing that they are just scared because they have nothing to support their belief is such a convenient excuse to keep using the same tactic, isn't it?I just want to see if you dare to publish my reply.

1. The oral debate would be in an internet chat room. Both debaters would have access to the internet plus to any written material they have in their residence so the memory issue is a moot point.

2. As far as speaking that is a pretty common and basic skill. I am sorry you haven't mastered the basics on how to talk yet. Feel free to have an interpreter translate your mumbling and monotone infested speech for a general audience!

The truth is that you don't want to suffer a humbling defeat that would be disseminated to tens of thousands of people. I am sorry you wish to cower in your intellectual bunny hole and not debate an appointed representative(s) of our Question Evolution! group.

I know people can make honest mistakes due to lack of due diligence in terms of the social science data and other data which is available.

The source of that data did very poor research, however, and there is a significant amount of social science evidence and evidence showing otherwise. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/another-major-flaw-found-in-survey.html and http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html and http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html and http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/decline-of-internet-atheism-articles.html

Plus, global atheism shrinking is going to have an effect on western world countries. In France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing worldview in France according to French academics. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html and http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/scholars-say-evangelicalism-is-fast.html

13 opinions stated as fact, not one of which addresses the evidential basis of evolution. You are falling into the common creationist trap of perceiving evolution as faith-based, as creationism is. Evolution is not faith-based. It is the overwhelming scientific consensus view based on consilient evidence from numerous fields, and that scientific consensus is not in any way addressed by the number of people who believe, however sincerely, that it's "turtles all the way down".

Argument by mere assertion is illogical. I cited a source for these 13 points while you chose to be illogical.

Second, you have a poor understanding of the Greek word which is commonly translated as the word faith in the Bible. See: http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html For example, the Apostles mentioned they were eyewitnesses. On the other hand, nobody has ever witnessed macroevolution.

2. You relying on consensus so heavily shows you have a weak argument evidentially. See: http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html And there have been cases where the Bible has been correct and the scientific consensus in error.

3. Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists (see: http://creation.com/15-questions )via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people.

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room: http://login.meetcheap.com/conference,89538844 You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua. Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email at http://www.youtube.com/user/shockofgod

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

There will be no future communication with you via this blog until you accept this debate offer and carry through with the debate.

There was a YouTube video with two atheist ladies. One of them researched the Good News Bible clubs. During the video, one of the atheist ladies said that today with many schools facing budget cuts, school boards are less able to sue creationists. That video has been pulled though due to the YouTube account closing.

Plus, during these tough economic times, non-profits often have less funds too and that would result in less lawsuits being launched by evolutionist non-profit organizations.